Gaudapada's Karika

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

GK: gaUdapAda kArikA
VP: vaitathya prakaraNa of GK
_____________________________________________________________________________

Allan Curry wrote:

>>3. perception and change is common to both states and the apparent world is
>>hence _not more real than the dream world_.
>>
>>It is not held as an axiom that reality should be unchanging and unmanifest,
>>rather it is found out along the way that things which change are unreal.
>
>I can see that differences between waking state and dream state may be
>difficult to define, but I'm not sure that *proves* that all qualities of
>one apply equally to the other. If there were not at least some difference

The point in the VP is not that the differences between the two states
are difficult to define, but rather that no meaningful difference exists.
shrI sha.nkara goes into great lengths stating all possible pUrva paxa
views and demolishing them. Note that there _seem_ to be differences, but
there really aren't.

>between the two states how could there be universal agreement that there
>*are* two states called waking and dreaming. Why does the world not
>universally agree that there is only deep sleep state and *the other one*?

The universal agreement that the sky looks blue does not make the sky
blue. Does the man in your dream say that there is only one state? No!
He says there are three states: waking, dreaming and deep sleep. That's
exactly what you also think in the dream state. The idea that there are
three states is thus only a mental construct. So is the idea that there
is universal agreement on only two of the states etc. This is the whole
point of the VP. I am not sure if you went through shrI sha.nkara's
bhAshhya on it. IMHO, it is very useful.

In this context it is worth the effort to think about shrI sha.nkara's
statement in the upadeshasAhasrI:

svapne tadvatprabodhe yo bahishchAntastathaiva cha |
AlekhyAdhyayane yadvattadanyonyadhiyodbhavaM || (Up.S XVII.18)

[ The events in the waking state are similar to those in dream. The ideas of
interior and exterior in the former state is as unreal as in the latter like
reading and writing depend on each other ]

>I can see that "it is found out along the way" that things change and/or
>disappear but I'm not sure that anyone has conclusively *proven* that
>things are/were unreal. If there were not some reality to the world,
>how could any science be possible? Why do the same laws of physics seem to
>apply equally well in your waking world and in mine?  This is not the case
>with our respective dream worlds. Is that a "meaningful difference" between
>waking state and dream state?

The difference is not meaningful because:

physical laws in your waking state = physical laws for a man in your waking
                                     state, namely me in my waking state.
physical laws in your dream state = physical laws only for a man you meet _in_
                                    your dream state.

You are making the mistake of comparing the physical law in your dream state
(as viewed from your waking state) with the physical law in my dream state, and
I am an entity in your waking state.

Thus the comparison is flawed. I hope I made myself clear here.

>I really hope you *can* prove to me that the physical world is unreal. I'm
>on your side here... I *want* to be convinced of it!  :-)  I already know
>that the physical world changes and that it is perceived through the agency
>of the mind, but I don't see why that makes it unreal just because dreams
>also change and are perceived through the agency of the mind.

The usual mistake made when pointing out the "differences" between the waking
and dream state is to ascribe a higher reality to the waking state (as one is
wont to) and thus make comparisons based on the point of view of the waking
state. No one denies that from the point of view of the waking state there seem
to be differences between the waking and dream states. A logical approach
entails _not_ assuming that the waking state is more real and form proper
comparisons and then see if there are any differences.

Anyway, the reasoning in the VP goes something like this:

1. That the dream state is unreal can be proved by means of logic and shruti
(the chariot analogy etc)

2. The waking state _appears_ to be more real, but is it? Logically the waking
state and dream state cannot be differentiated, though there is an innate
tendency to _assume_ that the waking state is more real. Again see the VP for
details.

3. Since we cannot logically differentiate the dream and waking state both of
them are equally real or equally unreal. shruti also asserts the same thing.
Thus the VP says:

svapnajAgarititasthAne hyekamAhurmnIshhiNaH |
bhedAnaM hi samatvena prasiddhenaiva hetunA || (GK II.5)

[ Inasmuch as the diverse things are (found to be) similar on the strength of
the familiar ground of inference, the wise say that the dream and waking state
are one ]

4. Empirical reality to waking and dream states is _not_ denied. No one denies
that from the point of view of the waking state the dream state appears
different.

5. The truth must always remain the truth, it cannot be invalidated at any
time. This is somewhat like saying Einstien's laws for relativistic motion are
the actual truth, since Newton's laws hold only in a restricted sense. Similarly
the actual truth is the undifferentiated Atman, since a substratum is required.
The state of deep sleep also comes into the analysis here. For the complete
details see VP.

6. So how is the empirical reality we experience explained? It is explained by
means of an undefinable substance (anirvachanIyam) called mAyA, which can
neither be real nor unreal. See chapter VIII of the mAnasollAsa also for a good
discussion on this.

Another question was: Can the experience of non-duality be an alternate state
of the brain?

"Experience" is a only a loose way of describing non-duality. This point is
brought out well in the mAnasollAsa. The only thing which can be said is
manonAsha (extinction of the mind) should be brought about to get rid of the
ego. After that what exists can obviously not be any modification of the mind.
So the question of the "non-dual experience" being a state of the mind does not
arise.

Ramakrishnan.